United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2903

___________

GLP, as next friend to S.G., a Minor, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Barry Lynn Nutt, Individually and in *

his Official Capacity as a Miller *

County Juvenile Detention Center * Appeal from the United States

Supervising Guard, * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Defendant, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Helen Andrews, Individually and in her *

Official Capacity as Miller County *

Juvenile Detention Center *

Administrator; Hubert Easley, *

Individually and in his Official *

Capacity as Miller County Judge, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 27, 2006

Filed: August 4, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas. 

2

GLP has waived her claim under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. See Watson

v. O’Neill, 365 F.3d 609, 614 n.4 (8th Cir. 2004) (where appellant offered no

argument on appeal related to one claim, it was deemed waived). Her Fourth

Amendment claim against Nutt was non-suited and is not before us. Finally, we do

not consider GLP’s newly raised substantive due process arguments. See Cross v.

Monett R-I Bd. of Educ., 431 F.3d 606, 611 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005).

-2-

GLP, as next friend to S.G., a minor, appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant

of summary judgment, and its denial of her motion for reconsideration, in her 42

U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. GLP sued Miller County Juvenile Detention Center (JDC)

officials Helen Andrews and Judge Hubert Easley, and JDC supervising guard Barry

Nutt, after Nutt sexually assaulted SG while she was a JDC detainee. The district

court granted summary judgment to Andrews and Judge Easley on GLP’s claims that

they violated SG’s Eighth Amendment rights by failing properly to train and

supervise Nutt.2

Having carefully reviewed the record and considered the parties’ arguments,

we agree with the district court that Andrews and Judge Easley were entitled to

qualified immunity on the individual-capacity claims against them. See Janis v.

Biesheuvel, 428 F.3d 795, 798-99 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review; qualifiedimmunity analysis); Spruce v. Sargent, 149 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 1998) (failure-toprotect claim); Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1078 (8th Cir. 1996) (supervisory

liability under § 1983). We also agree with the district court that there were no

trialworthy issues on the official-capacity claims. See Larkin v. St. Louis Housing

Authority Dev’p Corp., 355 F.3d 1114, 1117 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing elements of

failure-to-train claim against local government entity); Liebe v. Norton, 157 F.3d 574,

578 (8th Cir. 1998) (suit against county sheriff in his official capacity must be treated

as suit against county). Finally, we find no clear abuse of discretion in the district

court’s denial of GLP’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. See U.S.
-3-

Xpress Enters., Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 320 F.3d 809, 815-16 (8th Cir. 2003)

(standard of review). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________